Their View: Murphy case fizzles when charges could not be proven

If the Murphy case was a football game, Special Prosecutor Matt Chandler and Susana Martinez lost 42-3.

They brought five felony charges against former District Judge Michael Murphy, plus a misdemeanor charge of conduct unbecoming of a judge. The court initially dismissed the misdemeanor. The felony charges were losers, and Chandler finally requested they be dismissed Thursday. The lawyers disinterred the "conduct unbecoming" charge, and Murphy pled no conduct to that, saving the prosecution a bit of face. It's as if Barry Bonds struck out five times but they let him hit one off a tee so he wouldn't cry.

Thursday's hearing was interesting. Chandler made an extensive presentation arguing that Murphy was guilty of felonies.

Twice the judge asked pointedly, "If that's all true, then why are we here? Why are we here on a misdemeanor?"

Afterward, I pressed Chandler on the point. I assumed he did not believe he could convict Murphy on the felonies. He corrected me: "Absolutely we could prove each and every felony count beyond a reasonable doubt."

Then why were we here on a misdemeanor? He replied that the case had "started as an open case against a sitting judge, and now we've got a former judge who is a convicted criminal." (He added that even a jury verdict against Murphy could have been set aside by the trial judge or appellate courts, leaving Murphy unconvicted.)

Murphy's attorney, Michael Stout, disagreed: "They did not have the goods, because it wasn't true.

Advertisement

This wasn't a plea bargain for Murphy, it was a plea bargain for the state. They got something they couldn't have gotten, a conviction. Murphy got only what he was going to get at trial, dismissal of the felonies. We were willing to do it so Murphy could go on with his life."

Murphy was a loudmouth. He made unpleasant remarks about gays, and exceptionally stupid comments about politics and judgeships. He was short on tolerance and common sense. That cost him his judgeship.

Another judge thought his comments suggested something criminal. She complained to various authorities. None saw evidence of a crime.

Then she reached out to Susana Martinez. Martinez either suspected criminality or scented political opportunity. Enter Chandler, an ambitious Republican politico from Clovis. Even with Republicans, his conduct of the case shouldn't help him politically.

First Chandler tried judge-shopping. His unsuccessful efforts included demeaning and possibly slandering defense counsel Stout and Chief Justice Charles Daniels. According to his then-deputy, Kirk Chavez, Chandler tried to manipulate the system to keep a southern judge (Democratic) from hearing the case, by suggesting Daniels and Stout had colluded about the appointment.

Chavez found Chandler's conduct so unethical that he resigned in April 2011 — and signed an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, stating some very unappetizing facts. He wrote that although he otherwise admired Chandler as a mentor and fine lawyer, conscience wouldn't let him keep silent.

Chandler says that by the time of the affidavit, Chavez was "a disgruntled former employee." New Mexico Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles W. Daniels cited the affidavit in a 2011 ruling in the case.

Chavez wrote that Chandler secretly recorded other judges and their clerks. He said Chandler lied and misdirected the court and Stout about materials the court had ordered produced to the defense. To hide the discovery deception from the court, Chandler allegedly maintained duplicate files. Meanwhile Chandler was reporting regularly to Martinez on the case.

Chavez wrote that Chandler even told him to lie to the court about the whereabouts of the evidence file. Then, when the court ordered Chavez to appear, Chandler told him not to go, fearing Chavez would provide the Court information. When Chavez pointed out that he'd been expressly ordered to be there, Chandler ordered him to stand mute.

Chandler allegedly was "extremely adamant about arresting" Murphy. It's more usual in such cases to tell Murphy's lawyer to bring him in. But Chandler wanted to stage a "perp walk" to humiliate Murphy and make the evening news.

(That same mean-spiritedness was evident Thursday. With Murphy convicted, and on probation, why ask the court to prevent Murphy from leaving the county without permission? It's not as if he's out on bail.)

Chavez reiterated these allegations in a recent conversation. A tough conversation. Chavez has suffered through extensive investigations and a suddenly difficult job market. He lost his home and his wife and received one admonishment from the Bar. "It's sad to say," he told me, "but if an ethical young lawyer were about to do something like that, I'd tell him it's not worth it." Chavez also asked that if I ever met Murphy I apologize for what Chandler and Chavez did to him.

Murphy probably deserved to lose his judgeship for his intolerant remarks. His other comments probably warranted investigation. But when no evidence appeared, there should have been no prosecution.

He didn't deserve what he got. The New Mexico Judiciary did not deserve this blackening of its reputation. Taxpayers didn't deserve to pay for this case to continue so long.

I wasn't there. Maybe Murphy did commit those felonies. But if he did, provably, I don't quite get Chandler's rationale for settling now. He spoke of sending a message about judicial corruption. If he really believed he could prove the sort of corruption he claims, he should have pressed on.

Murphy had already lost his judgeship, law license, and reputation. A misdemeanor conviction doesn't add much to his punishment.

Peter Goodman is an attorney. He and his wife Dael live in Doña Ana County. He blogs at www.soledadcanyon.blogspot.com.